[ciphershed] Re: Reviewed some of the code
- From: "Alain Forget" <aforget@xxxxxxx>
- To: <ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 11:42:15 -0400
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ciphershed-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ciphershed-
>bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Stephen R Guglielmo
>Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2014 08:55
>To: ciphershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [ciphershed] Re: Reviewed some of the code
>
>On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 3:22 PM, Bill Cox <waywardgeek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> It looks like we will not be able to avoid the dependency on a
>> 1993 version of
>> Microsoft Visual C, but I think we can live with it.
>
>Hm, that's annoying. What's the reason you found that we can't avoid
>it? There has to be more recent open-source bootloaders that don't
>depend on that? Can we look at grub (GPL'ed) or lilo (BSD licensed)?
I also find this quite unnerving, and hope we can use a more up-to-date C
compiler.
>> I also looked into code that has any E4M copyright.
>--- SNIP ---
>> Given the link to E4M, I would recommend we remove all of the E4M
>> code from the system.
>
>I would tend to agree. I know "development stopped" for a brief period
>in the early history of TrueCrypt. Maybe some behind-closed-doors
>agreement went down with SecurStar?
I also strongly agree. The cleaner we can make our licensing issues, the much
better off everyone will be.
Alain
Other related posts:
